| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you have a point PossibleCabbage but I could just as easily see a GM going another way, see that the book suggests that access is worth a feat and deny natural access out of hand.
I completely disagree with this viewpoint. For me, what uncommon means is "this is around only in places where it makes sense for it to be there- it is not available everywhere, but it is also not only found in forgotten tombs and distant ruins- people in various places have this."
If you're completely disregarding things like "circus weapons are found at the circus" or "elf weapons can be found in the places elves keep weapons" then we have such a divergent understanding of the diagesis that I literally don't think I can sit at your table since I'm not going to be sure if the sky is blue or water is wet in your setting either.
I see those feats that guarantee access to uncommon things as ensuring that the other clause of the feat, that enables you to use those things effectively, is never useless. But the feat is about "you can use monk weapons" or "you can use gnome weapons". You should always be able to find monk weapons in monk places and gnome weapons in gnome places.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, what uncommon means is "this is around only in places where it makes sense for it to be there- it is not available everywhere, but it is also not only found in forgotten tombs and distant ruins- people in various places have this."
If you're completely disregarding things like "circus weapons are found at the circus" or "elf weapons can be found in the places elves keep weapons" then we have such a divergent understanding of the diagesis that I literally don't think I can sit at your table since I'm not going to be sure if the sky is blue or water is wet in your setting either.
I see those feats that guarantee access to uncommon things as ensuring that the other clause of the feat, that enables you to use those things effectively, is never useless. But the feat is about "you can use monk weapons" or "you can use gnome weapons". You should always be able to find monk weapons in monk places and gnome weapons in gnome places.
Good argument.
This is the only rational way to interpret the rarity system.Uncommon options and items for which there is no gateway feat or specification should be seen as oversights. There is no current gateway, but there could be in the future, or a DM could allow one off the cuff.
As far as the self-inflicted problem of a player who has no regular DM but instead wants to drift into (non-PFS) games with a pre-made character featuring various uncommon options for which there is no explicit gateway, he's either going to have to ask each DM as th occasion arises, or else play something slightly more "vanilla".
I mean, why can't he just say: "I'd like to join your campaign playing this character who grew up in a circus and has this item and that other thing that came from his circus background (but that are listed as uncommon in the books)." Any reasonable DM would agree, but if the DM says "that's not the flavor of the campaign I'm running" (or any other objection) then the uncommon player can either walk away or propose a different character.
I wonder what would happen if someone used a feat to get access to uncommon weapons, got the weapon(s), then retrained the feat to something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what would happen if someone used a feat to get access to uncommon weapons, got the weapon, then retrained the feat to something else.
Good luck finding a replacement for when someone decides to steal your death yo-yo. (I will steal your death yo-yo)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many AP elements are noted Uncommon so that they cannot be used outside the AP without the GM's approval.
It would have been a boon if it was written somewhere that these AP elements should be considered Common within the AP if such is intended.
That's just the "please override the GM" thinking again.
So no, it would *not* be a "boon" if it was written somewhere a player could insist on taking a game element even without the approval of his GM.
In fact, that's a recipe for disaster and it is very welcome that Paizo is putting the decision power squarely where it belongs: in the hands of the GM.
Thank you
Yeah sorry but I don't think Paizo intended the game to be one big "Mother may I" everytime you make a character/level up. That override the GM thing we already have that in the core book with feats that grant uncommon access. But here is a big thought if you as a GM don't want people using Circus feats/weapons/and the like don't run an AP with the PC's running a Circus for 20 levels. If you don't want a group of evil characters don't run Way of the wicked and then be shocked at what you get.
Old ways die hardSure... but the only way to actually change them is to do exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Since you're effectively saying "let's stick to the old ways", I mean.
I'm saying that you *sound* reasonable, but that your suggestion actually isn't reasonable at all.
Just to clarify, when I said "Old ways die hard", I was referring to my hypothetical GM, for whom the old ways of needing to be concerned about cheesing the system and therefore restricting access to combat it, by way of explaining the situation some players find themselves in. If the only option is to play with that GM or not play at all, yes, it would be nice to see more sympathy for that situation.
And if it is common sense to assume your players should have access to Uncommon circus weapons in a circus AP, why not say so explicitly and eliminate the doubt?
And if it is common sense to assume your players should have access to Uncommon circus weapons in a circus AP, why not say so explicitly and eliminate the doubt?
I mean sure it's a circus AP but I mean the party's circus is new and doesn't have a juggeler so they don have "access" to that. And since they are new they probably don't have access to the uncommon weapons either since they don't have a lot of money. And for that matter since they are in a circus we probably shouldn't let them use racial uncommon weapons either I mean where are they getting those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget someone playing a game in a circus, having the GM give them the weapon, then going to another game, "Where did you get that? That's uncommon and not allowed." Oh I played through the circus AP. "There's no feats that grant access to those. Not allowed."
Don't forget someone playing a game in a circus, having the GM give them the weapon, then going to another game, "Where did you get that? That's uncommon and not allowed." Oh I played through the circus AP. "There's no feats that grant access to those. Not allowed."
I mean unless your in PFS its unlikely to happen and outside of chronicle sheets (or whatever might be used now) it's unlikely you would end up with such a weapon without feat access anyways.
I mean if you play the same character under multiple GMs I would assume they are all on the same page as to things going on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean if you play the same character under multiple GMs I would assume they are all on the same page as to things going on.
I find that to be a particularly absurd expectation. People are rarely on the same page about anything.
Outside of PFS I have honestly never taken a character from one GMs game to another unless it was a specific over arching campaign that the entire group was onboard with from the start.
I have, all the time, but they almost always need little tweaks due to GM limitations or house rules.
I feel like if your group/s are swapping the gm on the story but keeping the same characters from session to session then at the very least people shouldn't be invalidating what the other GMs allow.
And if your just bringing the character because your joining a game and its the right level then its not technically the same character and would need to adhere to the new GM's rules just like if you built a fresh one.
Outside of PFS I have honestly never taken a character from one GMs game to another unless it was a specific over arching campaign that the entire group was onboard with from the start.
Same. If I'm going to be getting one of six GMs, and I don't know who, or what they're like, or what the rest of the party is then I'm going to be showing up with a 3-ring binder full of characters then picking one.
I mean if I don't know what the GM is like, I certainly don't know what the party is like so I'm not going to show up with a Clown Barbarian who wields a giant bladed yo-yo because maybe that's not something that's going to work well with the rest of the party. It might! But "a bard who helps others" or "a cleric who can heal really effectively" is going to work in a lot more parties so it's good to have one of those in your back pocket.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many AP elements are noted Uncommon so that they cannot be used outside the AP without the GM's approval.
It would have been a boon if it was written somewhere that these AP elements should be considered Common within the AP if such is intended.
That's just the "please override the GM" thinking again.
So no, it would *not* be a "boon" if it was written somewhere a player could insist on taking a game element even without the approval of his GM.
In fact, that's a recipe for disaster and it is very welcome that Paizo is putting the decision power squarely where it belongs: in the hands of the GM.
Thank you
I can take any Common game element "even without the approval of the GM". I can take many Uncommon game elements "even without the approval of the GM" provided I take the required feat.
How is this any worse?I dislike that the rarity is used for purposes that are not linked : being common or not, but also being potentially disruptive and thus indeed needing GM approval.
I think Circus weapons belong to the first category and not the second one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's just the "please override the GM" thinking again.
You literally can't do this, by definition. The GM has final say over what they put in their game.
The GM can even keep you from using common items if they deem it better for the story they're trying to tell.
So no, the game providing a feat or option that gives players a way to acquire items isn't 'overriding the GM.' It's... providing options to players to acquire items.
What the GM does with that is their business, but they're just as empowered to say no to that as they are to say no to anything else.
I mean if you play the same character under multiple GMs I would assume they are all on the same page as to things going on.I find that to be a particularly absurd expectation. People are rarely on the same page about anything.
Outside of PFS I have honestly never taken a character from one GMs game to another unless it was a specific over arching campaign that the entire group was onboard with from the start.I have, all the time, but they almost always need little tweaks due to GM limitations or house rules.Are you bringing the character with all their lives experience to an unrelated game or are you bringing the stat block and personality because those are two different things.
There is a big difference between "this is Jim the tricksy ranger who was there at the fall of plaguestone and has an a chemical crossbow" and this is jim the tricksy ranger."
Definitely "This is Jim, the tricksy ranger."
I might have a general background story that follows the character, but it rarely accounts for actual play time.
Definitely "This is Jim, the tricksy ranger."
I might have a general background story that follows the character, but it rarely accounts for actual play time.
Hey. That's my character thank you very much.
As a GM, I am glad that I do not have to allow juggling or bladed hoops in my game cart blanch. The circus theme of Extinction Curse rubs me the wrong way and it is not a campaign I am likely to run. I will probably allow throwing knives and the scorpion whip into my game but a player would really need to sell me on any of the other player options from this book to get me to budge, because I generally don’t want my horror survival campaign or wilderness exploration campaign turned in to a clown show so I can have a PC with access to a melee weapon that does fire damage.
I think some uncommon weapons that are incredibly theme driven don’t need any form of cart Blanche access. It is best to think of them as optional content by design, meaning they are not a universal part of all pathfinder games.
|
|
As a GM, I am glad that I do not have to allow juggling or bladed hoops in my game cart blanch. The circus theme of Extinction Curse rubs me the wrong way and it is not a campaign I am likely to run. I will probably allow throwing knives and the scorpion whip into my game but a player would really need to sell me on any of the other player options from this book to get me to budge, because I generally don’t want my horror survival campaign or wilderness exploration campaign turned in to a clown show so I can have a PC with access to a melee weapon that does fire damage.
I think some uncommon weapons that are incredibly theme driven don’t need any form of cart Blanche access. It is best to think of them as optional content by design, meaning they are not a universal part of all pathfinder games.
Uncommon has you covered here, which is the intended benefit of the Rarity system.
The issue is what about those who will play the AP? Should these items also be Uncommon (and thus GM fiat) for them? Or should a caveat be given somewhere that they are Common for those who play the AP?
Come to think of it, when I am the GM, I prefer to have such a clear rule rather than have to delve into each item to figure out if it is disruptive on its own.
If the AP just has "bladed hoops" and "juggling clubs" listed as explicitly present in loot piles, or shops that the PCs visit then it doesn't matter if they're uncommon. Perhaps you can't start with your death hoop (unless the GM throws you a bone) but you can use something else until you find one in book 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first read the title of this thread, I thought it said "Citrus Weapons" lol.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first read the title of this thread, I thought it said "Citrus Weapons" lol.
Gonna do TWF with "a sharp knife" and "a sack full of lemons".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah sorry but I don't think Paizo intended the game to be one big "Mother may I" everytime you make a character/level up. That override the GM thing we already have that in the core book with feats that grant uncommon access. But here is a big thought if you as a GM don't want people using Circus feats/weapons/and the like don't run an AP with the PC's running a Circus for 20 levels. If you don't want a group of evil characters don't run Way of the wicked and then be shocked at what you get.A somewhat contradictory response.
I fully agree circus weapons should be made available to circus PCs.
Maybe you quoted the wrong post?
That's just the "please override the GM" thinking again.
So no, it would *not* be a "boon" if it was written somewhere a player could insist on taking a game element even without the approval of his GM.
In fact, that's a recipe for disaster and it is very welcome that Paizo is putting the decision power squarely where it belongs: in the hands of the GM.
Thank you
No I quoted the right post you want to talk about override the GM thinking the whole point of my post is that we already have feats that grant access to uncommon items without the GM having to make a decision on uncommon being hard to find or whatnot. I agree the Circus AP should have access but if its not spelled out some GM's will keep the items blocked behind the uncommon wall because maybe these are rare but maybe they are the disruptive type.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the AP just has "bladed hoops" and "juggling clubs" listed as explicitly present in loot piles, or shops that the PCs visit then it doesn't matter if they're uncommon. Perhaps you can't start with your death hoop (unless the GM throws you a bone) but you can use something else until you find one in book 1.
Went and checked not listed anywhere in the actual adventure just in the circus appendix in the back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it makes a lot of sense to have a list of special circus related things that PCs can choose from in a circus themed AP. I just am also very happy that there is no generic path to get these things outside of running a circus themed AP, because I don't want PCs building characters assuming that they are going to be using a hula-hoop or a fire poi in a campaign where that is inappropriate.
I am very much in favor of the rarity system because it definitely pushes the player to come to me as GM if they have a character idea that might be a little bit out there, and I don't have to rain on their parade if they are building their character at home before the game and choose a feat like unconventional weaponry to gain access to a circus weapon, thinking that means their character is going to fit the expectations of my campaign. I want players to think, "hmm, I better talk to my GM about this" for most things that fall outside of core options, and not think, "I paid the price for this, so my GM has to let me disrupt the narrative of their game," especially over the kinds of options that feel crafted to be a part of a very specific campaign.
All of this is how the system is designed to operate. So I am just saying thank you to the folks at paizo for making a system that can allow for incredibly specific campaign focused material, without having to bloat the entire system to do so.
Circus weapons in particular happen to be an exceptionally good example of this because they are something interesting for this specific AP, but that I would never want to see become the default weapons of all alchemists because they can be used without taking up a hand if necessary.
And I can agree with that but all it would take is a throwaway at the front of that section stating that for players in this AP these items are considered common. You're still covered when running "Reunion of the Runelords"* and players with GM's who are hesitant about the uncommon/common thing can still be circus folk.
*If this title gets picked up by Paizo I would love it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is strange to me that people want to play games whose implicit advantage over board and video games is having a human referee who can make calls, but then don't want those referees to make any actual decisions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is strange to me that people want to play games whose implicit advantage over board and video games is having a human referee who can make calls, but then don't want those referees to make any actual decisions.
It's also strange to me that people who just want to tell a story without needing rules seem to want to play games with hard rules in them.
There are times when you need the GM to make calls and decisions no-one is saying otherwise. But we have a rarity system that combines both hard to find and could be problematic into one system. And little to no guidance on what is what. So yes if every new AP is going to come out with a giant block of uncommon stuff thematically appropriate to the theme then people are going to want to use that stuff.
So people are a little thrown off when they realize they are in the circus, and will be with it for the course of this AP but may never actually be able to find Circus items or learn a Circus dedication because they are uncommon and the GM is a real stickler for such things being hard to find. Guess your not going to bother because a lot of AP's don't leave the kind of downtime to hunt down something the town your in doesn't have.
The other issue is that these options are located in a book that is not player facing. So if the GM doesn't tell the players about these options in the campaign early on, then the players wouldn't even know these thematic options are open to them.
I think adding something in the GMG about how to introduce uncommon options to your players and where to look for them would be a very useful tool to have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the best way to say it is this.
Situations should require decision making, places where the rule don't yet reach, the rules that interact in odd ways or when someone goes in a direction the book didn't cover.
Individual rules shouldn't be written needing adjudication, that just leads to creating very different experiences. Just one rule with 2 different rulings means that going into a situation with a new GM you don't know what that ruling is. So for one rule not to bad, but when their are dozens if not more things written from the GM's choice side of things then each new GM whether through PFS or having a new group, is a whole new rule book of possible rulings to navigate.
Because you know what no one wants when they say they want that call making that video games don't have? They aren't saying I wish the game would decide that Dwarven weapons aren't for sale in most cities, or I wish the game lock out certain options on different playthroughs. They are saying man I wish I could talk my way past those guards, or man wouldn't it be cool if I could light the bandits tents on fire with a flaming arrow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the thing about TTRPGs is that they are essentially asymmetrical improv- as the GM the answer to most questions should be "yes, and". This doesn't mean that the players get to determine the boundaries of the world, but they do get to fill in the details.
So a player might ask "is there anywhere in this town I can get a Dwarven Waraxe?" I could go with "yes, though it's the personal axe of a Dwarf who has retired in this pastoral place, but has kept his axe for cultural reasons".
If a player asks "is the circus in town? I need a death hoop." I could respond with "yes but it appears to be an evil circus, though razor sharp anything might be more common in those."
Let players sow the fields with plot seeds simply by describing what it is they want.
I mean the thing about TTRPGs is that they are essentially asymmetrical improv- as the GM the answer to most questions should be "yes, and". This doesn't mean that the players get to determine the boundaries of the world, but they do get to fill in the details.
So a player might ask "is there anywhere in this town I can get a Dwarven Waraxe?" I could go with "yes, though it's the personal axe of a Dwarf who has retired in this pastoral place, but has kept his axe for cultural reasons".
If a player asks "is the circus in town? I need a death hoop." I could respond with "yes but it appears to be an evil circus, though razor sharp anything might be more common in those."
Let players sow the fields with plot seeds simply by describing what it is they want.
Yep I've found it makes things much easier to let them drive things in such a manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...You can discuss this all you want, Graystone, it doesn't change the fact PF2 works in a way you clearly dislike: where the game gives the authority to the GM.I don't like the amount of Dm fiat instead of rules, no. This, however, isn't that. Plenty of actual existing rules grant access to uncommon items: look at any focus spell. I'm asking that an existing rules framework be used as intended.
You're looking for a feat (or another ability) with which you can *tell* the GM you are allowed to use circus weapons regardless of what the GM wants or needs for his campaign.No, I'm asking that the DM be told how the game expects players to access them: the Dm has the right to allow or disallow whatever they want but if they say 'anything allowed in the rules', with access granted already, it's one less 'DM fiat' question I have to cover before we start. It just speeds things along for BOTH player and DM [at least where I play].
We have told you: "you won't find it". There simply is no rules language in The Show Must Go On that replaces a GM saying "yes".Yet there ARE places where access to weapons IS granted: You are making it sound like I'm talking about a totally foreign concept. It's NOT.I understand the concept. It is not foreign. It is also not nearly as ubiquitous in PF2 as in PF1.
Say what you want, the bottom line is this:
The GM *is* told how the game expects player access. That message is: "we leave it in your capable hands".
The kicker is there's no rule in the book the player can point to "it says here I get the weapons" that the GM has to say actively no to.
This is a difference to PF1. Some might call it subtle and small, others call it major and a huge relief. It is clearly a seismic change for you.
Good luck with your gaming
You’ve familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another ancestry or culture. Choose an uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a simple weapon.
If you are trained in all martial weapons, you can choose an uncommon advanced weapon with such a trait. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a martial weapon.
Seems to me that clearly says I get access to the weapon chosen. So the GM does actively have to say no you can't take a feat from the core rulebook in this case.
Seems to me that clearly says I get access to the weapon chosen. So the GM does actively have to say no you can't take a feat from the core rulebook in this case.
I'm not 100% sure about this. There was some debate back when the LOWG came out as to whether Unconventional Weaponry let you gain proficiency in the Aldori Dueling Sword, and the consensus seemed negative. So some clarification on that feat would be appreciated.
I mean if "Aldori" are not an "ancestry or culture" I don't think "Circus Performers" would be.